CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ACTION REQUESTED:
title
Receive the report regarding the City’s landmarking procedures and direct staff to draft amendments and facilitate review/approval processes as appropriate
body
DEPARTMENT: Transportation, Engineering and Development
SUBMITTED BY: Allison Laff, AICP, Deputy Director
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:
Upon Council direction to process amendments to Chapter 11 (Historic Preservation) of Title 6 (Zoning Ordinance), said amendments will require a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) feedback may also be sought on the proposed amendments prior to PZC consideration.
BACKGROUND:
Under New Business at its February 15, 2022 meeting, the City Council discussed the landmarking process, property owner rights, incentives, and possible changes to the existing landmarking procedures. At the conclusion of the discussion, City Council directed staff to prepare a report regarding these items, including research regarding best practices in historic preservation.
Overview of Naperville’s Existing Landmark Procedures
The following is an overview of Naperville’s existing landmark procedures:
1) Any person or entity, including the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), may submit an application to designate a property as a local landmark or historic district.
o For a proposed local landmark, owner consent is preferred but not required. In instances where the property owner is not the applicant, procedures are in place to notify the property owner of the landmark application and provide them with an opportunity to formally respond.
o For a proposed historic district, the HPC shall not recommend, nor shall the City Council grant, a historic district designation if a petition is presented in opposition that contains signatures of 51% or more of the owners of property located within the proposed historic district.
2) The landmark applicant is responsible for providing required written notice and posting a sign on the proposed landmark property at their cost. The applicant is also required to reimburse the City for its costs to publish notice of the landmark hearing in the newspaper. There is no application fee for a landmark nomination.
3) In order to be designated a landmark, an improvement must be at least 50 years old and must meet one or more of the criteria provided in the Code (also provided in Goal 2A below).
4) HPC review of landmark applications is currently advisory only in all instances. All final decisions are made by the City Council.
In order for a property to be designated a landmark, or for properties to be designated a historic district, a majority vote of the City Council is required.
DISCUSSION:
Best Practices Research
City staff reviewed the preservation ordinances of Aurora, Downers Grove, Elgin, Galena, Geneva, Joliet, Oak Park, Plainfield, and St. Charles. The summary of the research gathered is attached and will be referenced through the various discussion points below.
Overall, it is clear from the research that preservation ordinances can be (and are) tailored to fit a community’s goals. There is no standard or preferred ordinance format to follow.
Potential Changes to Landmarking Process
Based on City Council discussion at its February 15, 2022 meeting, information gained through research, and observations regarding the current landmarking process, staff has developed the following goals to guide potential changes:
1) Treat landmark applications like other City applications by requiring an application fee
2) Set a high standard for landmarking
3) Reduce the impact on non-consenting property owners
4) Encourage voluntary landmarking
Staff has detailed each goal and, upon the decision to change the current landmarking process, Council may direct staff to implement any combination of options listed below.
Goal 1: Require an Application Fee
A. Institute an Application Fee for Landmark Nominations
All development applications are charged an application fee which is paid by the applicant. This fee is intended to recapture the costs incurred by the City to process the application, and therefore, varies based on the intensity of the request. The City’s application fees currently range from $500 for a simple case to $5,000 for annexations.
The City does not currently charge an application fee for landmark applications; however, such applications, particularly those in which owner consent has not been granted, require a significant amount of staff time and resources to process. Staff therefore believes that it is appropriate to charge a reasonable application fee for submission of landmark application to be consistent with the treatment of other development applications.
Of the surrounding communities reviewed, Elgin charges a $50 application fee and Geneva requires a $500 deposit.
Goal 2: Set a High Standard for Landmarking
A. Refine Criteria for Designation of Landmarks
Under Naperville’s current ordinance, in order to be designated a landmark, an improvement must be at least 50 years old and must meet one or more of the following conditions:
- That it was owned or occupied by a person of historic significant in national, State or local history;
- That is has a direct connection to an important event in national, State or local history;
- That it embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural period, style, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials;
- That is represents the notable work of a building, designer or architect whose individual work has substantially influenced the development of the community; or
- That it is included in the National Register of Historic Places.
Upon review of the landmark ordinances of surrounding communities, staff found that most communities have criteria which is similar to those listed above. However, staff also found examples in which:
(1) Multiple criteria are required to be met in order for a structure to be considered for landmark designation. For example, Elgin requires that 6 of their 11 landmark criteria must be met (Naperville’s ordinance requires only that the building be at least fifty (50) years old and meets 1 additional condition).
(2) Additional landmark criteria are included.
To ensure that a building is worthy of landmark status, staff recommends that Naperville’s existing criteria be revised so as to require a stronger tie to significant history and architecture. In addition, it may be appropriate to require that a greater number of landmark criteria be met in order for landmark designation to be considered.
Staff also finds that consideration of the preferences of the property owner, the condition of the structure, and the practical and financial potential for adaptive reuse of the existing building may be factors that the HPC and City Council should consider when determining if a landmark application should be approved.
B. Amend the List of Parties Eligible to Submit a Landmark Application to Eliminate the HPC since it Conducts the Public Hearing on such Applications
The Code currently provides that “any person or entity, including the Historic Preservation Commission, may submit an application to designate a property as a local landmark or historic district”. Since the HPC conducts the public hearing on a Landmark Application and is intended to serve as an independent hearing body on such Application, staff does not find it appropriate for the HPC to also be eligible to submit such Application. Staff recommends that this Code section be modified to remove the HPC from the list of those eligible to submit a Landmark Application.
Goal 3: Reduce the Impact on Landmark Applications on Property Owners
A. Consider Requiring Property Owner Consent
Staff finds that the most successful preservation projects are those that have property owner consent. Such consent signals a property owner’s interest in the ongoing preservation of and reinvestment into a historical structure. In addition, the current landmark process may be costly and time consuming for non-consenting property owners and this burden will likely be more extensive for residential property owners who may not have the technical expertise or resources needed to respond to the application.
Naperville’s landmark requirements currently provide that property owner consent is preferred but not required for any commercial, institutional, or residential landmark nomination. The Code can be amended to require property owner consent for all landmark applications, or for a specific sub-set of landmark applications, such as nominations submitted for residential properties.
Of the nine comparable communities surveyed, two require owner consent to submit a landmark application:
- The three communities with the most landmarked properties (Oak Park, Joliet, and St. Charles) do not require property owner consent to submit a landmark application.
- The three communities with the least number of landmarked properties are Geneva, Plainfield, and Elgin. Plainfield requires property owner consent to submit a landmark application; Geneva and Elgin do not.
Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that the processes municipalities have regarding owner consent are not black and white. For example, although St. Charles does not require property owner consent to submit a landmark application, their staff noted that the St. Charles City Council typically is not in favor of landmark nominations presented without the property owner’s approval. While Joliet does not require property owner consent, their application includes a form that requires an owner signature and indication as to whether the property owner consents to the nomination.
Staff also reviewed the landmark ordinances of 46 additional Illinois communities specific to the issue of owner consent. Of the additional communities surveyed, 9 require owner consent to file a landmark application; 37 of these communities do not require owner consent to file a landmark application. However, of the 37 communities that do not require only consent, 12 of these communities show an indication that owner consent is preferred (i.e., owner signature line on the application, super majority or unanimous vote required if no owner consent, etc.). The additional analysis is attached for reference.
B. Modify Requirements for Non-Owner Landmark Applications
If a determination is made by the City Council to continue current Code provisions which do not require property owner consent to a Landmark Application, staff recommends the following procedural changes to reduce the time and cost impacts of the landmarking process on non-consenting property owners:
(1) Amend the Code to make the HPC’s denial of a non-owner Landmark Application final.
o Currently, the HPC makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Landmark Application; no decision of the HPC on a Landmark Application is final. As a result, a Landmark Application always comes to the City Council for a final determination, even if the HPC has recommended denial.
o Since the HPC is the subject matter expert for such applications, staff believes that it may be appropriate to give the HPC final decision-making authority on the denial of a Landmark Application unless an appeal is granted through the processed described in Subsection (c) below.
§ Note: any HPC recommendation of approval of a Landmark Application would still require a final decision by the City Council.
o If the City Council concurs with the approach suggested above, staff recommends that an HPC denial of a Landmark Application be a final decision unless the City Council, by a supermajority vote, directs that an appeal to said decision should be brought to the City Council. This would be accomplished by means of a motion under new business made at a City Council meeting not later than thirty (30) days following the HPC decision to deny the Landmark Application. As noted above, all HPC recommendations for approval of a Landmark Application would still require City Council review and approval.
(2) Amend the Code to require a supermajority vote of the HPC and City Council to approve a Landmark Application which does not have property owner consent.
a) If implemented, this change would require six (6) positive votes from the HPC in order for a Landmark Application which does not have property owner consent to move forward to the City Council for a final vote.
b) Any HPC vote which is not a supermajority in favor of approving a Landmark Application shall be deemed a denial of the Application and shall be a final decision unless the City Council directs that an appeal to said decision shall be brought to the City Council as set forth in Section 1(c) above.
c) For Landmark Applications which move forward to the City Council for a final decision, a supermajority vote of the City Council (6 positive votes) would be required to pass an ordinance approving a Landmark Application which does not have property owner consent.
(3) Amend property owner response requirements.
a) Currently, the Code provides the non-consenting property owner with a 60-day period (with one 30-day extension, upon request) to submit a written response to the landmark application, and to submit evidence in support or in opposition to the proposed landmark designation.
Such evidence may consist, but is not limited to, reports prepared by experts or specialists in one or more areas of expertise, inspection reports, photographs, and bids for repair or restoration.
b) The Code also establishes that the property owner may submit evidence to show that the improvement has deteriorated such that the cost to restore or repair the improvement to a condition which complies with the City’s standards for issuance of an occupancy permit would meet or exceed the assessed value of the improvement by 150%.
i. The Code is not specific as to how such evidence is to be factored by the HPC or City Council in their recommendation on the Landmark Application.
ii. Owners of properties which have been the subject of involuntary landmarking in the past have advised that the Owner’s response, as defined in the Code, is time-consuming and costly.
c) Staff recommends that the property owner response section be modified to permit the property owner to provide any testimony, response, or evidence which they find relevant to respond to the substance of the pending Landmark Application. Such response shall be considered by the HPC (and the City Council if Council is required under the proposed Code amendments discussed above) in evaluating the Landmark Application.
(4) Consider City compensation for costs incurred by a non-consenting property owner.
The City Council may consider establishing a fund to help offset some of the costs incurred by a property owner resulting from a Landmark Application to which they have not consented. If City Council is interested in this option, staff will develop a proposal for maximum reimbursement amounts and funding sources for Council consideration.
Goal 4: Encourage Voluntary Landmarking
A. Consider Incentives to Encourage Voluntary Landmarking
Naperville does not offer any local incentives for landmarked properties or for properties within the Historic District. Like the majority of the 9 communities surveyed, Naperville relies upon incentives offered to local landmarks by the State of Illinois (i.e., Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program for historic residential properties; Income Tax Credit for historic income producing properties).
However, the following communities offer an additional local incentive:
1) Aurora provides a Historic Preservation Grant Program, which is a reimbursable grant for exterior historic rehabilitation projects. The minimum amount of each grant is $5,000 and the maximum is $20,000; any grant over $10,000 requires a dollar for dollar match (no match is required for grants under $10,000).
2) Plainfield offers a façade grant program for their downtown historic properties.
3) St. Charles provides a Façade Improvement Grant Program for properties that are landmarked or are located within a historic district.
a) Multi-family and commercial projects are eligible for a 25% reimbursement for maintenance and a 50% reimbursement for other improvements up to $20,000.
b) Single-family projects are eligible for a 50% reimbursement up to $5,000.
c) For any project, architectural services are eligible for a 100% reimbursement.
Note: If the City Council is supportive of an incentive program, staff recommends that it be applicable to all existing and future landmarked properties and Historic District properties.
Summary of Potential Changes to Landmarking Process by Goal
Goal 1: Require an Application Fee
A. Institute an application fee for landmark nominations
Goal 2: Set a High Standard for Landmarking
A. Refine landmark criteria
B. Amend the list of persons or entities eligible to submit a Landmark Application to eliminate the HPC since it conducts the public hearing on such Applications
Goal 3: Reduce the Impact on Non-Consenting Property Owners
A. Require property owner consent to file a Landmark Application (for either specific sub-sets, or all, Landmark Applications);
OR
B. Modify requirements for non-owner Landmark Applications, as follows:
1. Amend the Code to make the HPC’s denial of a non-owner consented Landmark Application final.
2. Amend the Code to require a supermajority vote of the HPC and City Council to approve a Landmark Application which does not have property owner consent.
3. Amend the property owner response requirements.
4. Consider City compensation for costs incurred by a non-consenting property owner.
Goal 4: Encourage Voluntary Landmarking
A. Consider Incentives to encourage voluntary landmarking
Next Steps
Upon review of the information above, City Council should determine if there is consensus to move forward with any of the described options by amending Chapter 11 (Historic Preservation) of Title 6 (Zoning Ordinance), which will require a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission with a final vote by the City Council. City Council should direct staff as to whether any proposed amendments should also be sent to the HPC.
FISCAL IMPACT:
To be determined.